Comments on: Patents, Microsoft, and the Future

By: Required Reading on Innovation and Patents « Shepherd’s Pi

Required Reading on Innovation and Patents « Shepherd’s Pi — Tue, 20 May 2008 07:40:33 +0000

[...] fascinate me – reading them, counting them (as I watch others do each year), thinking about their implications. They serve fundamentally as markers of the reach of [...]

By: Media Says, IBM is Good for Government. Ah, Strike That…. « Shepherd’s Pi

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:40:05 +0000

[...] get me wrong: I like IBM, it’s a solid company with great technologies and great people. I’ve written before about my admiration for their research, labs, and focus on [...]

By: Manny

Manny — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:58:20 +0000

Thye open source definition is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition

There are 10 requirements. Does the API in question meet these? If not, the it is NOT open source.

1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.

By: Boycott Novell » Novell and Microsoft Amass Patents While Free Software Comes Under Fire

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:47:42 +0000

[...] like Novell, likes patents. But its loveraffair with patents has been reaching some worrisome peaks recently and it’s not hard to see why. Fact: According to the latest annual report on patents [...]

By: lewisshepherd

lewisshepherd — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:44:00 +0000

Not to be contrary, but au contraire. I know that for a lot of people, anything from MS is by definition proprietary and closed, but in this case that’s not true. I did point out that this is an open source API, and I even put “open source” in quotes to highlight the API-ness. The API (not other MS apps themselves, but the API) is “open source,” in the very same sense that the Google Maps API is open source, leading to such breathless commentary as ZDNet’s “Google Maps API transforms the Web…We are getting a great demonstration right now of open source power, as applications using the Google Maps API begin to appear… It’s Google, using the open source process, that has blown the field apart. The code has only been out a few weeks but already we’re seeing several really great applications…Individuals were ready and able to use the API right away, and trust the results in ways even the BBC was reluctant to try. And remember, this is just the start. I guarantee that hundreds of programmers are now poring over the Google Map API documentation, thinking about applications that will drive both them, and Google, to new heights. All on the wings of open source.” (http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=374)

All that about an API!

Now the Google Maps app itself – not the API – is not open source; it is proprietary, as everyone knows, and that’s fine. In fact, Google itself points out to the GMaps developer community that “You are permitted to use Google Maps on an Intranet, or in a desktop application only if you buy Google Maps for Enterprise. Prices start at $10,000 per year and it is only available in a few countries.” (http://mapki.com/wiki/FAQs#Permissions)

Anyway, as Norm Hodne, the MS Windows accessibility lead says in the article I linked to in the post, “We decided to donate the API we developed to make it open source and allow the AIA to take and port it to any platform they wanted to, Windows, Linux or Mac, to get consistency and accessibility” (and pointed out that MS is already leveraging its alliance with Novell to get the UI Automation Spec over to the Linux platform). He says, “We think it’s important this technology gets out there and companies don’t see assistive technology as a competitive thing they have to control or do better than another company.” To me, that’s a refreshing attitude, and fits not only the spirit but the letter of the definition of “open source.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)

By: Manny

Manny — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:57:58 +0000

“Yes – that’s Microsoft, making its API “open source” and allowing the AIA to port it to any platform (Windows, Linux, Mac), to promote accessibility.”

That’s NOT open source. It’s just a royalty-free license for a specific purpose. Open source means you open up the code and allow its use to create derivative software for any purpose. That’s a BIG difference.